In litigation, time is not neutral. Delay often benefits the party holding the money and harms the party waiting for compensation. That reality explains many of the defense tactics that slow the path from injury to resolution.
Corporate defendants and insurance companies know that time changes cases. Witness memories fade. Documents become harder to locate. Physical evidence disappears. Medical providers move. Treating physicians retire. The longer a case remains unresolved, the greater the risk that critical evidence becomes unavailable.
Delay also creates financial pressure. Injured people continue to face medical expenses, lost income, and uncertainty about the future. Defendants understand that some claimants will accept less than full value simply to end the process and move on with their lives.
Meanwhile, delay often benefits defendants and insurers financially. Claim reserves remain invested, capital remains available for other uses, and money that would otherwise be paid to claimants continues generating returns. In that sense, delay is not merely a litigation tactic—it can also be an economic strategy.
The tactics vary. Some defendants refuse to provide basic information until forced by court order. Others serve broad discovery requests while producing little of substance themselves. Some seek repeated extensions, file motions that do not advance the merits of the dispute, or wait until deadlines approach before raising issues they could have addressed months earlier.
Courts have long recognized that delay can be used as a litigation weapon. In Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., the Supreme Court explained that courts possess inherent authority to sanction parties who act in bad faith by “delaying or disrupting the litigation.” 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991). Likewise, in Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., the Court emphasized that federal courts must be able to manage their dockets to achieve the “orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962).
In product liability cases, manufacturers may withhold information about product design, testing, suppliers, or regulatory communications. In trucking and transportation cases, critical vehicle data, inspection records, and maintenance documents can become more difficult to obtain as time passes. In serious injury cases, defendants often challenge obvious damages, forcing plaintiffs to spend months or years proving facts that were never genuinely disputed.
The best response to delay is preparation. Early investigation, aggressive evidence preservation, targeted discovery, and relentless attention to deadlines can reduce the effectiveness of obstructionist tactics.
At O’Neill Friedman, we understand how delay strategies work because we spent years defending corporations and insurers. Today, we use that knowledge to identify those tactics early, protect critical evidence, and keep cases moving toward accountability and resolution.
